Vigilantism and the Lawful Alignment in OotS

[EmperorSarda]

Well yes, I think it's fair to say that invading another country tends to be chaotic, in the sense that it introduces a lot of uncertainty into peoples' lives. They don't know if they'll live or die, where or when the enemy will strike, or how long supplies will last. Infrastructure gets damaged, services are disrupted, lines of communication are cut. This is to say nothing of military tactics in general:

'All warfare is based on deception...
...Thus the pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless. If it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it or the wise make plans against it.'

Which sounds chaotic to me. Of course, (as Sun Tzu would emphasise) it also takes a lot of organisation, planning and discipline in order to raise and coordinate an army, and if you actually stick around after a conquest and strive to install new infrastructure and governance, I would agree that is a lawful sort of thing to do. (Whether it's good or bad is an entirely different question.) But the fact that Tarquin does both these things- even if the end result is a net increase in political organisation- makes his position on the L/C axis deeply ambivalent*.

By that logic Hinjo should not have led the war, since war is apparently a very chaotic thing. Heck, going out into the world and purging all evidence of the gates and slaughtering the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle could then be a very chaotic thing.

Or Hinjo succeeding Shojo as heir, since that produced very chaotic results, it must not be lawful.

You are conflating the chaos that is part of the world, and chaos of the alignment system. Declaring war can be a very lawful thing, depending on the context. Tarquin has used a very orderly method to taper down some of the chaos, the chaos of kingdoms being actually overthrown and has began replacing it with an orderly and systematic process in which the common person thinks the rulers have changed.

Also, look at the how Tarquin engages in conquest. It is very systematic. It is very orderly. Sure, there may be some chaos that stems from it, but that doesn't make Tarquin chaotic.

Or consider Roy's interview with the Deva; Roy was questioned on his lawful based on his deeds and how he went about them, never once was something questioned because of what resulted from it.

If Tarquin is chaotic because war is chaotic, then any country that tries to defend itself, that engages in war, is not lawful. Which means that Azure City fighting off an invasion would be a very chaotic thing for all those paladins to do. Seeking to reclaim the homeland, would be a very chaotic thing for Hinjo to engage in.

[quote]Well, yes. Because the alignment descriptors credit Chaos with being flexible and adaptable, and Law with being rigid and hidebound. This is a pretty clear-cut case where Law is dumb and Chaos is smart, but nobody said being all-Lawful, all the time, in every respect, was advisable or even practicable.

*You can even argue that while the transition from long-running tribalistic anarchy to centralised beuraucracy is better organised, it's also a huge departure from local traditions. According to standard descriptors, the former is lawful, but the latter is actually chaotic.

Being lawful doesn't mean to you adhere to all the laws of every land, or else no Paladin would be able to overthrow evil tyrants.

Destroy one government, replace with another, coordinate governments replaced == net result of increased organisation. I get the argument. But it's rather similar to the idea of killing 6 innocent people, taking their food, and saving the lives of 9 others from starvation == net result of reduced suffering.

Except in the example of the Western Continent before Tarquin, it isn't just many people starving for lack of infrastructure, but more many people killing others to save only a handful. Tarquin coming in reduces the number of people that have to be killed so eventually no one is starving. More or less, using your analogy.

[Porthos]

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

So if it is good enuf for the devils of the Nine Hells, logically it should be good enuf for Tarquin.

...

Why are we arguing about this, then?

[theNater]

Well yes, I think it's fair to say that invading another country tends to be chaotic, in the sense that it introduces a lot of uncertainty into peoples' lives.

Which might be relevant if the measure was amount of chaos in other people's lives.

But it's rather similar to the idea of killing 6 innocent people, taking their food, and saving the lives of 9 others from starvation == net result of reduced suffering.

Let's scale it back. Killing one person to save one other from starving. Most people would count that as Evil, or at least non-Good.

On the other hand, sacrificing oneself so that one other person will be kept from starvation will be regarded by most as a Good act.

The trick is that Good/Evil cares about the distinction between self and other in these sorts of actions. Law/Chaos doesn't, so toppling someone else's government to replace it with a more(or equally) Lawful one is no more Chaotic than rearranging one's own government to be more(or equally) Lawful.

I'm virtually certain there's nothing about Tarquin's laws that specifically says blue-skinned lizardfolk bounty hunters must have their paperwork misfiled.

I'm pretty sure that Tarquin's personal code includes something about taking revenge on those he feels have wronged him.

Edit: Aw man, I got the last post of the page again? Now nobody's gonna read it. Curses!

I read it. Can't speak for anybody else, though.

[lio45]

But predictability is a bad measuring stick anyway. Someone kicks Mr. Scruffy; what will Belkar do?! Clearly he must be Lawful if we can tell for sure he will brutally murder that person!

Again, it's a matter of scale. Sure, Belkar can be totally accurately predicted to eat food, drink liquids, sleep, and breathe, but that's not the point.

Belkar's definitely less predictable than his Lawful teammates Roy and Durkon. For example, if there are people being attacked by slavers, it's a given that Roy and Durkon will attempt to fight the slavers and rescue the people; Belkar, on the other hand, might prefer to stab the slavers, or stab the people, depending on which race happens to be the most satisfying to eviscerate, or ally with the slavers, maybe (or not) turn on them because of any reason (Mr. Scruffy or other), or rescue the people so he can own them and they can do his laundry, or rescue the people so he can then force them to fight to the death for his own amusement, or anything else, really.

[lio45]

I don't disagree with those definitions, I just think that Tarquin is not terribly predictable, and has actually created a lot of short-term disorganisation in his time. At the same time, he has been a long-term force for increased organisation.

Tarquin displays, IMO, a behavior that is actually quite predictable when you compare with the Evil characters who are on the opposite end of his alignment axis (Xykon, Belkar).

A while ago, someone in the thread asked me what an unambiguously LE ruler (such as a Baatezu) might actually do differently if they were in Tarquin's position. (Well, first of all, they'd probably have fed Nale and Elan to the Empress, because they wouldn't have cared about some stranger's kids, but let's pretend that we're talking about some kind of alt-Tarquin with a different personality. In which case, I could imagine a few hypothetical differences. I'll try to come back to that later, but I'll just say that while a more Lawful character might well be less effective at doing what Tarquin does, that just makes T more effective at his job, not less ambiguously aligned.)

OK, sure, some people out there can be more Lawful than Tarquin, yes. Everyone will agree with you there. That scale isn't a continuum; on a character sheet, it's a quantum step from Neutral to Lawful, and there's nothing in between the three states. Tarquin has been "rounded up" to Lawful. Not everyone Lawful has to act the same level of Lawful, and not everyone Lawful will act 100.000% Lawful. Otherwise, that would make for a really special, and really unrealistic, campaign world.

As long as you're slightly closer to purely Lawful in behavior/mindset/attitude than you are to purely Neutral, you'll officially be Lawful.

So yes, there are definitely things that a being of pure Lawfulness will do differently than Tarquin, but the relevant observation here is that there would be even more things that a being of pure Neutrality (on the Law/Chaos axis) will do differently than Tarquin, and there would be even even more things that a being of pure Chaos will do differently than Tarquin.

[mhsmith]

I'd probably say that Tarquin is at most weakly Lawful and more likely Neutral. If he counts as Lawful, then he'd be the true Evil Counterpart of Roy, and it's certainly reasonable to visualize an Evil Counterpart to Roy's judgement:

Obviously he registers as Evil, so we can skip that.

For Lawful though...

I can see that you are someone who's organized an empire out from the mess of chaos on the content. That certainly would be Lawful enough for us... except that you often veer toward Chaos in the execution of your plans.

Running a decades-long scam on the entire continent, ignoring the commitment of marriage by going through wives like candy (especially if it turns out that Elan's mom isn't the only marriage he chose to end), letting your Chaotic Good son survive to threaten your empire because it'd make a great story, and frequent attempts at casual deception in the name of humor - are not acts that scream "Lawful." Using Chaotic means to fulfill Lawful ambitions strikes me as fairly Neutral, and I don't think my superiors would blink if I kicked your case over to the Neutral Evil afterlife...

So the real question is whether the rest of Roy's judgement would apply. Is Tarquin really trying to be Lawful? He certainly doesn't have an overriding cause of belief system that he adheres to (not explicitly serving an Evil deity, religious or philosophical order, etc.).

There's certainly a lot that's happened off the pages, but based on what we've seen of Tarquin so far, I'd say that he only acts in a Lawful manner to the extent that it helps him enjoy his life to the fullest. To me, he seems to basically be Neutral Evil who acts on the Lawful side due to selfishness as opposed to any actual dedication to any kind of idea or cause.

[BroomGuys]

I can see that you are someone who's organized an empire out from the mess of chaos on the content. That certainly would be Lawful enough for us... except that you often veer toward Chaos in the execution of your plans.

I need input from someone who knows the system better than I do, but is it really possible to compare the pure Lawfulness of a LE character with that of a LG character without running into some bad hang-ups?

Running a decades-long scam on the entire continent,

Here's precisely what I mean. Would you really expect a Lawful Evil character to have compunction about, say, going behind the backs of a league of paladins without actually lying to them about anything? Deception, it seems, has implications on both axes of the alignment spectrum, so why not say the Lawfulness of deception depends in part on whether you're Lawful Good or Lawful Evil?

ignoring the commitment of marriage by going through wives like candy

'Till death do us part. 'Nuff said.

(especially if it turns out that Elan's mom isn't the only marriage he chose to end)

Didn't she sue for divorce?

letting your Chaotic Good son survive to threaten your empire because it'd make a great story

Ok, does being Lawful really mean you have to kill everybody who's any kind of threat to the order you're creating? It's certainly not the case if you're LG.

and frequent attempts at casual deception in the name of humor

The 'casual' part implies this is on the level of Roy's ribbing of his teammates and its impact on his Good alignment.

There's certainly a lot that's happened off the pages, but based on what we've seen of Tarquin so far, I'd say that he only acts in a Lawful manner to the extent that it helps him enjoy his life to the fullest.

And Roy is Lawful to the extent that he tries to help people, but do so in a Lawful manner.

To me, he seems to basically be Neutral Evil who acts on the Lawful side due to selfishness as opposed to any actual dedication to any kind of idea or cause.

He's Evil. Is a Lawful Evil character really supposed to be more dedicated to Lawfulness than himself? Evil characters are supposed to be selfish.

[Sir_Leorik]

I can probably agree with this line of reasoning. The cosmic alignments form a wheel, not a grid. However - Tarquin is still Lawful Evil. He's just not a Modron/Formian/Inevitable.

Modrons and Inevitables are exemplars of Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil. (Formians are not exemplars of anything, other than rampant expansionism, ala The Borg.) Devils are the exemplars of Lawful Evil.

You're right that despite his crimes against humanity (and lizardfolk) Tarquin's still a mortal, capable of love and other positive emotions. As he showed Elan, he is a father, and he loved his children. He just doesn't love them more than the opportunity to gain power.

[mhsmith]

I need input from someone who knows the system better than I do, but is it really possible to compare the pure Lawfulness of a LE character with that of a LG character without running into some bad hang-ups?

It's a good question. I'm not sure. But I'd think that drawing a good/evil comparison to what we know about Roy's judgement is at least a reasonable starting point. Especially since a lot of the Law/Chaos issues which apply to one seem to apply to the other.

Here's precisely what I mean. Would you really expect a Lawful Evil character to have compunction about, say, going behind the backs of a league of paladins without actually lying to them about anything? Deception, it seems, has implications on both axes of the alignment spectrum, so why not say the Lawfulness of deception depends in part on whether you're Lawful Good or Lawful Evil?

Well, he's not primarily deceiving paladins (that's Shojo). But I think a reasonable counter-argument is that his original impulse was to try the Lawful Evil type approach to conquest (come in, win battles, put everyone beneath your bloody boot) and only resorted to trickery when that failed.

OTOH, a more Lawful approach might have been to recruit more Evil adventurers, to spend a few years levelling up to the point where he was strong enough to basically win battles on his own, or find some other Lawful way to get his empire.

I'd certainly say that between the fact that he originally tried the Lawful approach and the fact that he's largely built a Lawful society, that what he's done certainly wouldn't count as Chaotic. But it might count as Neutral. Or at the very least a relatively weak level of Law (though being on the weak end of Lawful didn't keep Roy out LG heaven).

'Till death do us part. 'Nuff said.

Didn't she sue for divorce?

Actually, in that case Tarquin sued for divorce . Technically that's legal, but OTOH it shows a flexible attitude towards commitments that you probably wouldn't see from Roy. In fact, Roy explicitly got in trouble over briefly abandoning his commitments when he let Elan stay kidnapped for a few hours. If that was just a Good/Evil issue, he'd have been at risk to go to the LN bucket, not True Neutral. Would Lawful Evil have the same issues over that one choice Tarquin made? Maybe, maybe not.

And to add to the discussion, I'm a bit skeptical that all of his other wives just happened to die from time to time. I'd think it's more likely that he either sued for divorce again or (IMO more likely) had at least some of them done away with. Clearly it's an off-stage thing, so who knows, but offing his own wives because he got bored does seem to be within what we've seen of his character.

Ok, does being Lawful really mean you have to kill everybody who's any kind of threat to the order you're creating? It's certainly not the case if you're LG.

I wouldn't think so, but he explicitly acknowledges that he expects Elan to eventually overthrow him. That's more than a "maybe it's a threat" deal. Of course, he also could have been lying/storytelling to conjure up a way to justify letting Elan go without being suspicious while he arranged his own tracking mechanisms to achieve his larger purpose.

The 'casual' part implies this is on the level of Roy's ribbing of his teammates and its impact on his Good alignment.

I was thinking the Not Thog episode, the creamed spinach story, etc. Roy is the sort of person who seems to take just about everything seriously. Tarquin seems much less so. I don't think "has a giant stick up his ass" would be an insult that anyone would bother to use against Tarquin, and it certainly seems that Tarquin has quite a lot of fun on a frequent basis. Neither are especially Lawful descriptors.

And Roy is Lawful to the extent that he tries to help people, but do so in a Lawful manner.

He's Evil. Is a Lawful Evil character really supposed to be more dedicated to Lawfulness than himself? Evil characters are supposed to be selfish.

Well, you could be more Lawful than Evil or vice versa. I don't think either disqualifies you from the definition. But I never really get the sense that Tarquin is dedicated to ANY cause other than his own pleasure, ego and self-interest, even to the extent that it wouldn't detract from them.

As far as an endgame goes (though "he's a big liar so don't believe what he says" is reasonably possible) it seems like he'd be happy if Malack turned his empire into a vampiric hellscape or if his own son overthrew him.

Ultimately, his alignment strikes me as similar to Kubota's. They play by a lot of the LE rules, but mainly it's because it's convenient. There aren't any real qualms about taking Chaotic actions like trying to murder a liege lord (Kubota) or running a continent wide scam (Tarquin).

[Sir_Leorik]

As I mentioned before, because I think this kind of behaviour normally has the net effect of making the world less organised and predictable. Honesty isn't Lawful because it's arbitrarily declared to be, but because prediction and organisation depend on accurate and comprehensive information. It's about there being a useful correlation or consistency between what you say and what you actually do.

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

This debate is running around in circles because your definition of "Lawful" and "Chaotic" do not match the ones used in the D&D game (3.5 edition). Devils have a rigid chain of command that starts with Asmodeus, goes down through the Lords of the Nine, the Dark Eight, the lesser pit fiends, all the way down to the lowliest lemure. When there is a vacancy the devils promote the most worthy candidate for the job. Of course "most worthy" is as likely to depend on which Horned Devil's been garnishing a member of the Dark Eight with lots of jink as it is to depend on which Ice Devil has a superior combat record in the Blood War. Demons (with the partial exception of Graz'zt, who's a bit more civilized than his peers) don't care about hierarchy. Whoever is strongest and toughest bullies the rest. Tumble to this: if you wanna call the Abyss your kip you gotta pay the music.

(By the way, if you want me to stop using the Cant from the "Planescape" campaign setting, stop referring to the Devils as "Baatezu" and the Demons as "Tan'arri". Your anachronistic terms designed to assuage the moral guardians are making me nostalgic!)

[thereaper]

Destroy one government, replace with another, coordinate governments replaced == net result of increased organisation. I get the argument. But it's rather similar to the idea of killing 6 innocent people, taking their food, and saving the lives of 9 others from starvation == net result of reduced suffering.

The point I'm making is: If this was all you knew about someone's behaviour, would they count as good, as evil, or as neutral? If they count as good, then Tarquin counts as lawful. If they count as evil, then Tarquin counts as chaotic. And if they count as neutral, Tarquin counts as neutral- just on a different axis.

I'm virtually certain there's nothing about Tarquin's laws that specifically says blue-skinned lizardfolk bounty hunters must have their paperwork misfiled. By that logic, Shojo rigging a show trial to bring in the OOTS was itself a Lawful act. It is partly for this reason that I'm skeptical Tarquin's behaviour can really coincide with a deep-seated need for order.


(For the record, I must emphasise that I am not trying to conflate chaos with evil here. I am not claiming that 'deception is always wrong', in the sense of evil-aligned, but that it is, within the framework of D&D definitions, a chaotic type of action. It just so happens that the examples of Tarquin employing deception (or manipulation, or subverting due process) also make him look evil, but that is a coincidence. Likewise, the specific chaotic actions which Shojo takes in the comic are largely unpleasant, but this is not because I am cherry-picking the data- it's because that's the only data available in-comic when it comes to discussing their character's ethical outlook.)

You're comparing apples to oranges with your G-E/L-C example there.

Also, you continue to associate deception with Chaos, despite the fact that the very exemplars of the LE alignment deceive each other all the time.

Look, let's get one thing straight. Devils are the living embodiment of Lawful Evil. For one of them to perform a Chaotic act is the equivalent of an Angel committing an Evil one.

Can you imagine an angel murdering an innocent person on the street?

Probably not.

Guess what? Conquest, lies by omission, corruption, and perversion of Law are things that Devils do all. the. time.

If any of these things were Chaotic, they would be as abhorrent to the Devils as murder is to Angels.

And yet, the Devils do these things all the time.

From this, we can conclude that these things are not Chaotic.

I honestly don't think that Tarquin's chaotic inclinations are really on such a minor scale. He's not just making one or two transparent complements to visiting diplomats, he's deceiving and manipulating a large fraction of the continent's population, along with their leaders, and introducing huge political change in the process.

I don't disagree with those definitions, I just think that Tarquin is not terribly predictable, and has actually created a lot of short-term disorganisation in his time. At the same time, he has been a long-term force for increased organisation. This isn't so much about the nature of his actions- if we can finally move past silly assertions that things explicitly described as chaotic are not chaotic- but on the relative weighting we assign to means vs. ends.


A while ago, someone in the thread asked me what an unambiguously LE ruler (such as a Baatezu) might actually do differently if they were in Tarquin's position. (Well, first of all, they'd probably have fed Nale and Elan to the Empress, because they wouldn't have cared about some stranger's kids, but let's pretend that we're talking about some kind of alt-Tarquin with a different personality. In which case, I could imagine a few hypothetical differences. I'll try to come back to that later, but I'll just say that while a more Lawful character might well be less effective at doing what Tarquin does, that just makes T more effective at his job, not less ambiguously aligned.)

And I say he has created a lot of short-term organization.

See? I can make statements without evidence, too.

Also, if you are going to be that strict in the "Disorganization=Chaos" camp (to the point that the disorganization caused as a result of war is considered Chaotic), then all characters in the strip would have to be irrevocably Chaotic simply due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything tends toward greater disorder. Stab someone? Net increase in disorder in the universe. Tell the truth? Same deal. Clean your room? Breaks down more structure (in the form of biological energy and heat) than it creates.

Now before you go and say that I'm being so overly specific that I'm going far outside the scope of the alignment system and how it defines Chaos, keep in mind; the same can be said of your argument.

So, clearly, there's something wrong with your argument.

As I mentioned before, because I think this kind of behaviour normally has the net effect of making the world less organised and predictable. Honesty isn't Lawful because it's arbitrarily declared to be, but because prediction and organisation depend on accurate and comprehensive information. It's about there being a useful correlation or consistency between what you say and what you actually do.

Again, I'm prepared to believe that Baatezu lie-through-omission all the time, but I'd argue that actually makes them less Lawful, in the same sense that demogorgon stamping on anyone trying to claw their way up the pecking order probably makes the Abyss less Chaotic. (I'd suggest that Hell is maximally LE in the sense of 'highest possible sum of Law + Evil', rather than 'maximum Evil' and 'maximum Law', because you cannot simultaneously optimise two different variables.)

In any case, I'll probably leave it there for another day or two.

Organization can come from deception. Tarquin has proven it. By the same token, if someone at the movie theater asks a would-be Terrorist what is in his bad and he admits that it's a bomb, that honesty will cause a lot of disorganization.

There is no practical difference between lies by omission and true lies. And yet, one is considered Lawful, while the other is Chaotic. Whether we like it or not, the distinction is arbitrary.

Who says you can't maximize both variables?

But let's assume you can't. Claiming that this inherently makes Devils less Lawful also implies that Modrons must be less Neutral (which doesn't even make sense!). After all, if a Devil must occasionally sacrifice Law to do Evil, then a Modron must occasionally sacrifice neutrality to do more Law. It furthermore implies that a CG Angel must occasionally sacrifice Good for more Chaos.

By the way, why are you assuming that Devils prioritize Evil over Law? Logically speaking, if we're assuming they must prioritize one over the other, then there should be a 50/50 split, with half putting Evil first, and half putting Law first.

Also, you think that Demogorgon attacking whoever he feels like for whatever reason he feels like (or even no reason at all) isn't Chaotic?

I'm pretty sure doing whatever the heck you want, whenever you want, no matter who gets hurt by it is the definition of Chaotic Evil.

Throw in the fact that you insist on manipulation and deceit to be Chaotic, and it's pretty clear you don't know what Chaos actually is. Furthermore, in your myopic focus on organization, you completely ignore the most important aspect of being Lawful: Principles.

Being Lawful means living your life according to a code (which may or may not be the same as the world around you). This is your structure. You are organized because you live your life according to a code. You believe that your code is right. You try to bring structure to the world because you believe that structure is better.

A Chaotic person may or may not have a set of rules for how to live their life, but they don't particularly care very much if they break them. "Oh well", they'll say, and happily go on their merry way. They bring disorganization to the world because they don't put much effort into their own internal structure; because in the end, they don't really care.

But if you ever fail your code? Well, you have failed your beliefs, and yourself. You have sinned. Maybe you committed an Evil act, maybe not. But nevertheless, in your own mind, you have done something that was wrong. And it will eat away at your conscience just like an Evil act would.

[theNater]

And to add to the discussion, I'm a bit skeptical that all of his other wives just happened to die from time to time. I'd think it's more likely that he either sued for divorce again or (IMO more likely) had at least some of them done away with. Clearly it's an off-stage thing, so who knows, but offing his own wives because he got bored does seem to be within what we've seen of his character.

It is very likely that Tarquin has murdered at least some of his wives. That would be a very Lawful Evil kind of thing to do; honoring the "til death do us part" in the literal sense without honoring the spirit.

I wouldn't think so, but he explicitly acknowledges that he expects Elan to eventually overthrow him. That's more than a "maybe it's a threat" deal. Of course, he also could have been lying/storytelling to conjure up a way to justify letting Elan go without being suspicious while he arranged his own tracking mechanisms to achieve his larger purpose.

Remember, Tarquin is using the properties of narrative structure to his advantage. He's essentially made an implicit deal with the universe; he gets to live in luxury for decades in exchange for providing a good story. The fact that the story includes his painful death is part of the price he pays. Leaving Elan alive is in furtherance of this "deal", and as such can be considered a Lawful act.

I was thinking the Not Thog episode, the creamed spinach story, etc. Roy is the sort of person who seems to take just about everything seriously. Tarquin seems much less so. I don't think "has a giant stick up his ass" would be an insult that anyone would bother to use against Tarquin, and it certainly seems that Tarquin has quite a lot of fun on a frequent basis. Neither are especially Lawful descriptors.

Roy knows how to have fun. Whether it's taking advantage of an honest mistake for some R&R, spending a night on the town with a lovely lady, gleefully working out his frustrations on one enemy or another, or even just settling down for a board game, he's not the least bit shy about having a good time. His taste doesn't run towards the goofy, and the quest he's on doesn't leave a lot of time for fun, but the suggestion that Lawful people have to be serious all the time is not supported.

Well, you could be more Lawful than Evil or vice versa. I don't think either disqualifies you from the definition. But I never really get the sense that Tarquin is dedicated to ANY cause other than his own pleasure, ego and self-interest, even to the extent that it wouldn't detract from them.

Being Lawful isn't necessarily about championing the cause of Law. When speaking of Lawful Neutral characters, the SRD says "She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government." You can still be Lawful without adhering to one of those, as long as you adhere to the other.

[Burner28]

Roy is the sort of person who seems to take just about everything seriously. Tarquin seems much less so. I don't think "has a giant stick up his ass" would be an insult that anyone would bother to use against Tarquin, and it certainly seems that Tarquin has quite a lot of fun on a frequent basis. Neither are especially Lawful descriptors.

Of course not. But there is nothing Chaotic about having fun, either, because there is no book ever that has given "Fun" an alignment.

[Snails]

Yes, indeed, Carry2's definitions are hopelessly flawed.

The Giant chose to wrote Lawful characters, that on the scale of "pure" Chaotic (1) and "pure" Lawful (10), ranged from 7 (Roy), 8 (Tarquin), and 9 (Malack and Durkon). In fact, I would note that most Devils would only sit around 8 or 9, based on typical D&D descriptions offered by game authors.

Carry2 denies anyone but a full 10 is actually Lawful. Roy, Tarquin, Malack, Durkon, and almost every Devil in Hell is Neutral in his eyes.

He is welcome to attempt to run a campaign with his only peculiar definitions, but he can offer nothing of value on this topic to those who are mostly interested insights about either the OotS comic or typical D&D campaigns.

[Sir_Leorik]

The Giant chose to wrote Lawful characters, that on the scale of "pure" Chaotic (1) and "pure" Lawful (10), ranged from 7 (Roy), 8 (Tarquin), and 9 (Malack and Durkon). In fact, I would note that most Devils would only sit around 8 or 9, based on typical D&D descriptions offered by game authors.

Carry2 denies anyone but a full 10 is actually Lawful. Roy, Tarquin, Malack, Durkon, and almost every Devil in Hell is Neutral in his eyes.

That is an interesting system of classifying the spectrum of faithful a character is to their alignment. Is this based on one of The Giant's comments?

My view of the extremes of Alignment are that a Lawful Neutral Extraplanar Construct like an Inevitable or a Modron is as close to a purely Lawful being as exists in the D&D game. Archons are motivated to do Good, Devils are motivated to promote Evil; they both do so for Lawful ends and through Lawful means. But an Inevitable is not swayed by moral arguments. If you violate the terms of a contract, a Kolyarut will come to enforce the terms of the contract. The Kolyarut may attempt to parley, in the hopes you will fulfill your end of the contract voluntarily, but if you refuse it will beat you up and make you fulfill your end of the bargain. The reason is that Inevitables view contracts, justice and even the natural lifespans of mortals, as necessary parts of the fabric of the cosmos. If these laws and contracts are violated the multiverse is damaged, and as Lawful beings the Inevitables must see that the damage is repaired at any cost.

This is an extreme view; most Lawful characters don't look at how their actions might have ramifications beyond being arrested or made to pay a fine. The major exception among mortals are the planar faction known as the Fraternity of Order. The Fraternity's members (called "Guvners" in Sigil when they were the clerks who ran the city's court system) seek to learn the fundamental Laws of the multiverse. They believe that everything that exists has Laws, and that all Laws have loopholes; by learning the loopholes to the Laws that govern the multiverse they will come to rule the Multiverse. Guvners are forbidden to break any Law; they may not commit murder, they may not steal, they must dutifully pay their taxes and they may not cross the street when they do not have the right of way. But they are allowed to use loopholes. If a statement is technically true they may swear by it in court without committing perjury. If someone breaks into their home they may kill their assailant in self-defense. They may claim a share of booty promised to them under a letter of marque and reprisal issued by a recognized government. And they may comb the tax code to look for tax breaks, deductions, business expenses and tax refunds.

Furthermore, the Guvners are only required to be Lawful; they may be Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. (Most members, including former Factol Hashkar, are Lawful Neutral.) Lawful Good Guvners provide legal services pro bono; volunteer as teachers; work in soup kitchens; and seek to promote justice by enforcing just Laws and looking for Loopholes in unjust Laws. Lawful Neutral Guvners study the Laws dispassionately, looking to find loopholes that benefit their clients or themselves. And Lawful Evil Guvners (which include Devils, Rakshasas, Mind Flayers and Beholders) seek to find ways to use the letter of the law to opress their enemies while benefitting from loopholes that let them get away with murder (sometimes literally!).

While the stereotype of a Guvner is drawn from Factol Hashkar, a boring Dwarven sage who turned out to be a petitioner living in Sigil via a loophole, nothing stops a Guvner from marrying and having a family, going to a play or an art gallery. They are just as likely to be mirthful and jocular, happy to discover new Laws and Loopholes, as they are to be humorless scolds who begrudge those who have fun.

[Tragak]

That is an interesting system of classifying the spectrum of faithful a character is to their alignment. Is this based on one of The Giant's comments?

Mostly, it's just a way to show-case how Carry is going overboard by most peoples' standards.

[Snails]

Those are my ratings. IMHO, of course.

Roy is sitting on the margins between Neutral and Lawful. He tries, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. I gave him a 7.

Tarquin has a strong sense of personal rules, but he is habitually deceptive and the code he lives by is not understood by others (and perhaps he lets others misunderstand on purpose). I gave him an 8.

Malack and Durkon were less than perfectly Lawful, employing a few careful small deceptions. But they are both "wide-eyed" Lawful in their own way, and there seems to be a bit of Lawful mancrush going on, in spite of being an ocean apart morally. I gave them both a 9.

Devils lie. Not about all things, but about many, many things. 8 or 9 ( in most cases).

[Domino Quartz]

Tarquin has a strong sense of personal rules, but he is habitually deceptive and the code he lives by is not understood by others (and perhaps he lets others misunderstand on purpose). I gave him an 8.

This has been asked many times, but I think I must ask it again: How does deception make someone unlawful (or less lawful), as you seem to be saying here?

[rodneyAnonymous]

I agree, deception is (mildly imo) Evil, but Lawful and Chaotic characters might differ in how they go about doing it.

[factotum]

This has been asked many times, but I think I must ask it again: How does deception make someone unlawful (or less lawful), as you seem to be saying here?

I agree. Was O-Chul performing an Evil or un-Lawful act by lying to Redcloak on the ramparts in order to try and save those slaves? Heck, he didn't even Fall for doing it, even though Paladins are held to a much higher standard of Law and Good than the average person!

[theNater]

I agree. Was O-Chul performing an Evil or un-Lawful act by lying to Redcloak on the ramparts in order to try and save those slaves? Heck, he didn't even Fall for doing it, even though Paladins are held to a much higher standard of Law and Good than the average person!

O-Chul performed a Chaotic act by lying, as his code of conduct prohibits it. He didn't fall because it was a minor violation, and falling is only triggered by alignment change, Evil acts, or gross violations.

[EmperorSarda]

O-Chul performed a Chaotic act by lying, as his code of conduct prohibits it. He didn't fall because it was a minor violation, and falling is only triggered by alignment change, Evil acts, or gross violations.

Who says it is against the code of conduct for Paladins to lie on occassion?

[hamishspence]

Who says it is against the code of conduct for Paladins to lie on occassion?

From paladin class description:

a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

However, it may not always qualify as a gross violation- and on occasions when it doesn't, the paladin doesn't Fall.

[Snails]

This has been asked many times, but I think I must ask it again: How does deception make someone unlawful (or less lawful), as you seem to be saying here?

I hold that deception does not make one unLawful, but it usually considered a Not Perfectly Lawful act -- presumably Neutral or Chaotic. Lawful persons are not barred from Neutral acts. (Just like Good persons like Paladins are not barred from doing not nice things that are probably Neutral.)

That lying is often Chaotic is implied by the Paladin Code. Whether every kind of deception qualifies as "lying" is a matter of controversy. My personal opinion is that some kinds of deception are not lies, in the context of the Paladin Code -- they are Neutral.

IMHO Tarquin is not merely often deceptive, but so habitually and successfully deceptive that his accomplishments would boggle the mind of most Chaotics. I do not find that a problem for Tarquin being very Lawful, but I think he is much less than "honorable" by the common definition of such things (although it is quite possible he has his own exotic personal definition of honor where he rates highly).

[Snails]

I agree. Was O-Chul performing an Evil or un-Lawful act by lying to Redcloak on the ramparts in order to try and save those slaves? Heck, he didn't even Fall for doing it, even though Paladins are held to a much higher standard of Law and Good than the average person!

IMHO a good DM would adjudicate these things with context in mind. O-Chul was not deceiving for purposes of personal benefit -- he refused to lie for the simple purpose of avoiding torture. He was 100% motivated by a desire to help others that he could not possibly assist in any other way.

In contrast, Miko seems to have been more motivated by personal glory than helping anyone else in particular.

Honorable is a broader concept than merely "never tells lies". It also means one can be relied on and counted on in a number of important ways. A very small Chaotic act here would probably gain him positive points for honorable behavior, rather than lose them. So the gods gave him a pass (or perhaps even XP for good roleplaying ;) )

[Carry2]

By that logic Hinjo should not have led the war, since war is apparently a very chaotic thing. Heck, going out into the world and purging all evidence of the gates and slaughtering the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle could then be a very chaotic thing... ...Which means that Azure City fighting off an invasion would be a very chaotic thing for all those paladins to do. Seeking to reclaim the homeland, would be a very chaotic thing for Hinjo to engage in...
...Being lawful doesn't mean to you adhere to all the laws of every land, or else no Paladin would be able to overthrow evil tyrants.

Well, arguably, yes. But a paladin could well compensate for this in other ways- a stringent honour code, sense of tradition, obedience, legalism, internal organisation and so forth- and bear in mind that paladins don't fall for performing chaotic acts, only 'gross violations of their code'. (As for the specific behaviour of the paladins in SoD- yes, by all rights, those should have fallen and left craters behind.)

Like I said earlier, taking a whole and ascribing it's nature to every part is fallacious reasoning. Paladins can do chaotic things and still remain lawful based on other things they do. Tarquin, however, has no honour code, no particular loyalty, no faith in tradition and no respect for the law- even his own laws. These cases are not comparable.

I would also mention that it is technically possible to conduct war in an almost purely Lawful fashion- it will just severely hobble your chances of actually winning against more... flexible opponents. In practice, it doesn't happen much, but nobody said being 100% honourable was easy. Go ask Ned Stark.

Tarquin coming in reduces the number of people that have to be killed so eventually no one is starving. More or less, using your analogy.

Yeah, but in the process of creating a world where no-one starves (for government/infrastructure), he kills a lot of people (or rather, governments/infrastructure.) The end result does not erase his track record of methods employed.

[EmperorSarda]

Tarquin, however, has no honour code, no particular loyalty, no faith in tradition and no respect for the law- even his own laws. These cases are not comparable.

No honor code or loyalty? He didn't kill Elan! How does that not fall into either? Or Loyalty to Malack and his group's "long standing protocols"? No faith in Tradition? Where do you even get that? He appreciates tradition. And how does losing the Bounty Hunter's paperwork mean he doesn't value his own laws?

I would also mention that it is technically possible to conduct war in an almost purely Lawful fashion- it will just severely hobble your chances of actually winning against more... flexible opponents. In practice, it doesn't happen much, but nobody said being 100% honourable was easy. Go ask Ned Stark.

There are difference of what constitutes honor on a battlefield. Killing opponents after they surrender? Definitely evil, definitely a chaotic, unhonorbound thing to do. Setting up an ambush, screens, diversions on the battlefield? Very honorable things to do. Dishonorable would be attacking under a flag of truce or the like. We have yet to see Tarquin do so. Otherwise it would a stupid lawful way to fight, to always fight straight forward without varying tactics.

Yeah, but in the process of creating a world where no-one starves (for government/infrastructure), he kills a lot of people (or rather, governments/infrastructure.) The end result does not erase his track record of methods employed.

The killing of lots of people just means he is evil. That he has a system in place to methodically reduce the wars and expand his empire is a lawful thing.

[Carry2]

Careful. Quoting only the positives from one side and the negatives from the other doesn’t paint a complete picture.

Good thing I did that earlier.

As was asked earlier though, Carry is there anyone in the comic who you think does demonstrate a lawful alignment? (I'll modify it to just unambiguously lawful).

I suppose Durkon's a reasonable candidate, since he has a strong sense of duty, tradition and personal loyalty, prefers to stay on the right side of the law (even in T's empire) and lies with considerable reluctance. His record isn't perfect, of course, but it's a lot stronger than T's.

And, just throwing this out there. Losing the paperwork of someone you want taken care of is VERY lawful evil. A chaotic ruler would've, say, just kept them locked in antimagic cells without any records of them being there.

So... Tarquin is Lawful... for taking the time to ensure the right paperwork is there... by ensuring the right paperwork is not there... which is actually Chaotic.

And Tarquin is Lawful... for manipulating others through lies-of-omission... but Shojo is Chaotic... for neglecting to mention that he had hired the Order to violate his own oath of office. (I mean, it's not like they asked.)

That's... just dizzying.

[Carry2]

No honor code or loyalty? He didn't kill Elan! How does that not fall into either? Or Loyalty to Malack and his group's "long standing protocols"? No faith in Tradition? Where do you even get that? He appreciates tradition...
...There are difference of what constitutes honor on a battlefield. Killing opponents after they surrender? Definitely evil, definitely a chaotic, unhonorbound thing to do.

Well, by the logical standards of this thread, I guess that means tradition isn't Lawful, because Elan loves that brand of 'tradition', and he's CG.... or maybe that's a very insubstantial kind of traditionalism. Getting Malack to stave off his agenda for the sake of Nale is disloyal to Malack. And while T has a bunch of reasons for sparing Elan- biology, self-interest, entertainment- nowhere is 'honour' mentioned. (By contrast, having your biological offspring executed for their crimes against the state would be very Lawful.)

Setting up an ambush, screens, diversions on the battlefield? Very honorable things to do.

Well, regardless of what particular standard of honour you're referring to, I'd still say the planning and organisation is Lawful, but the deception is not. I agree that a 100% Lawful approach to war tends, indeed, to be stupid. Just ask Xenophon. But rules are rules.

The thing is that while you can look at behaviour such as, e.g, stubbornly refusing to adjust a belief system regardless of how much contrary evidence comes to light over several centuries, and call it retarded, it's hard to argue that it isn't consistent, traditional, predictable and regimented. In other words, pretty darn Lawful.

The killing of lots of people just means he is evil. That he has a system in place to methodically reduce the wars and expand his empire is a lawful thing.

This was specifically with reference to the G/E analogy to Tarquin's L/C behaviour- i.e, that a mixed record on killing/saving innocents is analogous to a mixed record on destroying/creating governments or infrastructure. I wasn't making any particular comment on Tarquin's moral outlook (which does seem fairly Evil.)
.

[Sir_Leorik]

I suppose Durkon's a reasonable candidate, since he has a strong sense of duty, tradition and personal loyalty, prefers to stay on the right side of the law (even in T's empire) and lies with considerable reluctance. His record isn't perfect, of course, but it's a lot stronger than T's.

Except Durkon's way of being Lawful is not the only way shown in the comic. The High Priest Hurak even lampshades this in OtOoPCs: "That lad's so Lawful, if I told him to leave and never return till I call for him he'd do so no questions asked!" What Hurak seems to be implying is that Durkon's rigid view of lawfulness is an extreme one, even among Lawful dwarves. And even Durkon is willing to "bend the truth", using technicalities and extreme leaps of logic.

So... Tarquin is Lawful... for taking the time to ensure the right paperwork is there... by ensuring the right paperwork is not there... which is actually Chaotic.

Tarquin is Lawful because he set up an elaborate bureaucracy which meticulously files paperwork which is submitted in court proceedings. He is Lawful because he paid Gannji and Enor for their troubles, since the bounty hadn't included important details (that Nale had an identical twin brother) that led them to make a mistake and waste resources catching Elan, Haley and V.

Tarquin is Evil because he took a personal affront to Gannji's attempt to extort more money from Tarquin in front of his long lost son, when Tarquin was trying to shoo Gannji and Enor out the door. Tarquin is Evil because he decided to get revenge on Gannji and Enor. Tarquin is Lawful Evil because rather than grabbing his greataxe and lopping Gannji's head off, Tarquin waited until Gannji and Enor were arrested and then arranged to have Chancellor Kilkil not present exonerating evidence in their favor. He is Lawful Evil because rather than kill them outright, he gave them a "sporting chance" to survive by pitting them against each other in the arena. Tarquin is Evil because he pit two best friends (whose relationship is based on George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men") against each other in a duel to the death, despite his own son pleading on their behalf.

The mistake you're making is confusing Chaos and Evil. They are not the same. Tarquin is Lawful. Tarquin is Evil. That makes him Lawful Evil.